STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC ANCHOR: Another government shutdown? Good morning and thanks for getting up with us this Sunday morning. The headline at this hour. More than 50,000 people in the San Francisco Bay Area will be starting their day without power, this in the wake of a preliminary magnitude 6.0 earthquake this morning. The quake was centered six miles outside Napa. The "Los Angeles Times" says the reports are starting to come in of gas leaks and some fires in Napa. We will keep you updated with more information as we get it this morning. But first, we`re going to begin today by taking a very short trip in the time machine, back to what this country looked like ten short months ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The government shutdown, furloughing thousands, closing parks and gutting agencies designed to keep us safe.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: 97 percent of NASA is on furlough.

KORNACKI: Food safety and nuclear inspections have been suspended.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shuttering of national parks has locked out hikers and park goers.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two hours delayed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Museums are closed for business and hundreds of thousands of non-essential government employees are furloughed indefinitely.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The families of our fallen soldiers now being told there`s no money to bury those who died fighting for our flag.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: And if it seems now like that couldn`t possibly happen all over again, at least so soon, well, a Senate minority leader appears to have other ideas, or at least a very short memory.

Acting what could be a $100 million campaign for re-election this fall, Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell says he will do what it takes to oppose President Obama next year, even if that means shutting down the federal government again. In an interview with Politico on his campaign bus this week, McConnell said he will make the president reign in his policies. We`ll face another shutdown "We are going to pass spending bills that are going to have a lot of restrictions on the activities of the bureaucracy" McConnell said. "That`s something he won`t like, but that will be done, I guarantee it."

That`s what McConnell talking about, life would be like next year with a Republican House, Republican Senate and a Democratic White House. Asked whether this could lead to another shutdown, McConnell said the president needs to be challenged, and the best way to do that is through the funding process.

And so, those two weeks in October of 2013 when Republicans got the blame and supposedly learned their lesson, we might be seeing a repeat again soon. We might be seeing it often, in fact. Because this time it won`t be Texas Senator Ted Cruz leading a band of Tea Party rebels in the basement of a Mexican restaurant, it will be a Republican leader of the Senate. And issue won`t be the implementation in defunding of the Affordable Care Act, of Obamacare, it will be over every item, large and small, that Mitch McConnell deems necessary to, quote, "reign in President Obama`s policies."

Most of the capital reacted to this story this week with indignation. Democrats rejoiced about a member of the Republican leadership deviling (ph) in extremism. Congressman Steve Israel who`s leading the Democrats House campaign effort this fall said, quote, "For the sake of our economy, this Republican Congress needs to take shutdowns off the table once and for all." And meanwhile, Republicans distanced themselves from the shutdown agenda as well. Conservative activist Grover Norquist tweeted on Friday, "If you threaten to shut down the government over X, the press will focus on the shutdown and no one will hear about X. We did this before." And they have done this before. And the results were disastrous as "The Washington Post" Greg Sargent reminded us this week, those with an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party rose to an all-time high during that month of the shutdown last year. And again, though, I guess, if Republicans do pick up enough seats to win the senate this fall, maybe they would then conclude that the shutdown hadn`t been that disastrous for them after all.

So, what`s McConnell`s motive in bringing this up right now? Is it to rally the conservative base in Kentucky where he`s facing a perilous re-election fight this year? Is it to motivate conservatives everywhere so that Republican can win enough sits to take back the senate this fall? Or is to shore up his support within the Senate GOP, to make sure that if he does win his own race in Kentucky in November, he won`t turn around and face a challenge from his right for his leadership post. When Politico asked Senator Cruz if he would back McConnell to stay on this leader, he paused for eight whole seconds according to the article before saying, quote, "That will be a decision for the conference to make."

Whatever McConnell`s exact motive, there`s also the risk here of a backlash. Will moderate and independent voters recoil at the new talk of a shutdown hurting the GOP this fall? And maybe more importantly there`s this, will raising the hopes of the conservative base now, of another dramatic shutdown with Obama, will that cascade in the months ahead into the kind of pressure that Republican leaders will be powerless to fight next year? In other words, is McConnell tying his own hands here?

Here to discuss that with us is Sahil Kapur. He is a congressional reporter for "Talking Points Memo," Jay Newton Small, congressional correspondent for "Time" magazine and Beth Fouhy, senior editor of msnbc.com. So, this McConnell comment, this is what the world will look like, if you give us - the Senate give Republicans the Senate, keep the House and they get two years of sort of confrontation with President Obama. This is what he says, it will look like this week, I guess the first question is just trying to figure out what exactly his agenda is in bringing this up. I mean the three that jump to mind, that was as we said, his own re-election campaign, Republicans everywhere, and trying to retain the leadership position after November. Anyone have a good guess there what it is?

JAY NEWTON-SMALL, TIME: I this Grover Norquist was right, when you said if you utter the word shutdown, he actually never did say the word "shutdown", but when you bring up the prospect of possibly shutting down the government, you don`t hear about X. X here was about coal, it was about getting rid of, you know, the EPA`s tough new coal standards. And that really was the message he was trying to get out with Kentuckians, you know, with Kentuckians where this huge amount of coal that`s produced. They hate these new EPA standards. And so, he`s really just looking at his re-election, he`s looking at trying to, you know, gain popularity in a state where he`s really not that popular right now. And so, he`s trying, you know, he`s not looking nationally or at the party, or anything like that, he`s just looking very locally. With national repercussions.

KORNACKI: And McConnell is obviously a strategic guy. As we saw in that Ted Cruz quote there, he`s got to kind of be worrying about multiple things. Like obviously, if he doesn`t win re-election in Kentucky, ball game, it`s all over. But if he does win re-election in Kentucky, it took Ted Cruz eight seconds to say something basically neutral.

BETH FOUHY, MSNBC.COM: Well, I mean this is a lot of three-dimensional chess we`re playing here. I mean he, Mitch McConnell, may not be re-elected, he may not even want to run for majority leader. If we don`t - the Senate is going to flip. I mean there`s a whole lot of variables that are going on here. I agree with Jay. I mean this is a very short-term ball that he`s playing right now, which is odd, given that he`s very strategic, as you say. But he`s in a very tough re-election. And one of his biggest problems is that a lot of Republicans in Kentucky think he`s totally sold out. He`s gone Washington. That`s why he had a Tea Party challenger in his primary. I mean he dispatched with that guy, but nonetheless.

KORNACKI: Still at 35 percent against him.

FOUHY: Yeah, yeah. There`s real unhappiness with Mitch McConnell in Kentucky that he`s a total tool of Washington, he`s in with lobbyists, he doesn`t care about the folks back home. So, he`s really got to play this hard. He`s in trouble, he`s the only Republican at this point, chances are, who has got any chance of losing his seat in 2014. So, he`s got to play to the base.

KORNACKI: There may actually be a second Republican in trouble. We`re going to talk about that later the show. A little bit of the tease there.

But Sahil, looking at the shutdown from last fall, because it does strike me, it`s interesting. When that was playing out, we were looking at those poll numbers, it just looked like such an epic disaster for Republicans. I guess you could make the case if Republicans turn around this fall and pick up those six seats and win the Senate, that they look around and say, hey, that didn`t hurt us at all.

SAHIL KAPUR, TALKING POINTS MEMO: Sure, they will say that. There`s no doubt they will say that. And the comments from Senator McConnell were a little bit puzzling, because he`s not what you`d call a loose cannon, he`s very shrewd and he`s very calculating. And he of all people knows that this stuff doesn`t fly with the average American voter. The problem is, it does play really well with the conservative base. And as Beth was just pointing out, he needs to shore that up back in Kentucky where he`s not doing particularly well with Republicans. And he`s actually in danger. His overriding priority right now is to win the Senate and to become minority leader. The problem here with the comments he`s made is that once you dangle something like this before the Tea Party, and, you know, in front of them, they`re not going to take it lying down. When push comes to shove, if he`s a majority leader, he`s going to have to follow through. You can bet that Ted Cruz and every last Tea Party group will put these comments before and in front of him if he doesn`t go that route and if he doesn`t force a confrontation with the president over something like coal or other things that Republicans want at the time. So, this is very difficult to walk back from.

KORNACKI: Well, yeah, this gets to sort of what is the mindset, what is the psychology of the Tea Party. Because I can remember back to the 1990s when Republicans had their shutdown dramas with Bill Clinton. There was always this band of sort of conservative Republicans who emerge from that. And it was always like, any time you ended it, it was always going to be too soon for them. If we just had held out from our hour, another day, another week, another month, we would have gotten the conservative dream realized. And is that - I mean, you know, we talk about what the poll numbers look like for the Republican Party. But Jay, is there their conservative movement, the Ted Cruz types, is there reading of the shutdown last year different? Like we were this close to victory?

NEWTON-SMALL: Absolutely. And, you know, this actually is a playbook that was taken from the Democrats, frankly. This is what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did at the end of the Bush administration to try to end the Iraq war. Right, like we tried to put timelines and withdraw of troops, and things like that, and it was a huge gamble because everyone was, like, that`s really unpopular, the prospect of a shutdown. But the problem is, is that this time, you know, back then, it actually really worked because, you know, the war was incredibly unpopular and the prospect of a shutdown was so distant, so improbable, nobody would ever realize it, right? But the problem now is that we`ve already had a shutdown. We have this group that hankers for a shutdown. And every time you raise the prospect of it, they go, yay, they`re really excited about it. And so, it becomes a really - you know, a reality. And it takes on a life of its own. It snowballs and people talking, you know, and get Ted Cruz meeting in the basement of Mexican restaurants, the next shutdown. And so, it`s just completely different --

KORNACKI: When we - so, it was last year it was over Obamacare implementation, it was over health care. Do we know - let`s say Republicans were to get the Senate this year. They have the House. They have the Senate. Is there an issue right now, you look at the conservative base that, hey, this is the thing that they want to turn around if the next November and pick the fight over.

KAPUR: Immigration.

KORNACKI: It`s immigration?

KAPUR: No doubt it will be immigration, especially if the president unveils an executive action by the end of the summer, which would expand DACA, the program that applies to young people right now. Probably would encompass their families and children. Even if he doesn`t, there`s a lot of angst right now over what`s happening on the southwest border, there`s a lot of angst right now about the president`s immigration policies, generally are, you know, his agenda generally, and they want to .

KORNACKI: So, even - so if he does something, it would be take that off the books.

KAPUR: Right.

KORNACKI: Threat of a shutdown.

KAPUR: It would be roll back what he`s already done. And if he does something by the end of the summer, it would be roll that back.

KORNACKI: So, OK, the deferred action class whatever, this summer.

FOUHY: Yeah, but let me make a contrary argument. I mean there`s no question that legislatively that`s what they would want to do, but politically moving into the 2016 election, the presidential which is immediately, what`s going to happen, as soon as 2014 ends, you`ve got Rand Paul. You have got Ted Cruz, you`ve got folks who are going to probably run for president. Sure, they want to play to their base, they want to win the primaries. But they know this is a complete disaster for any chance of Republicans taking the presidency in 2016. And especially to go right for immigration that way just seems like completely suicidal.

KORNACKI: But I wonder, it gets to the psychology, I mean if we`re talking about a December 2014, Republicans have just won the Senate. And they`re saying, hey, they all told us it was a disaster to shut down the government. And look who`s - I just wonder how to fix the psychology. We are out of time with this segment, but my thanks to Jay Newton-Small of "Time", Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo for joining us this morning.

And coming up, President Obama ordered a new review in the wake of Ferguson. We`ll have the details on that, plus a look at the administration`s overall response. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: As we mentioned, it was another night of relative calm in Ferguson, Missouri. There was no teargas, there were no shootings, no Molotov cocktails, only a handful of arrests. One of the biggest questions to emerge in the wake of the situation on the ground there has been this, how did St. Louis County police forces as well as departments across the country for that matter, how did they come to be equipped with military-style equipment in the first place and should they have been, in the first place? Well, last night we learned that President Obama has ordered a review of the federal program that supplies local police forces with high grade weapons and gear. It`s the Pentagon`s "Excess Property" program. And it spent nearly half a billion dollars last year alone. The President Obama is sending three aides to tomorrow`s funeral for Michael Brown, the unarmed teenager who was shot by a Ferguson police officer two weeks ago.

Those are just two actions taken this week by President Obama. But how are Americans feeling about his response overall especially in one key demographic that`s helped to propel him to the White House? Well, take a look at this: 60 percent of African-Americans agree with how President Obama has responded to the Ferguson shooting and to its aftermath. 60 percent. That`s a clear majority, a super majority in the Senate terms. But that number is not as huge as maybe you think it might be when you consider that black voters helped to deliver the White House to Obama by significantly higher margins. President Obama`s response to what has been happening in Ferguson has been very measured. He endorsed the rights of the protesters, he condemned the looting and the violence. He acknowledged the racial divisions in the community and within the justice system. There were remarks full of nuance and caution.

And that neutrality has prompted some blowback from some of the president`s most loyal demographic. Georgetown sociology professor, an MSNBC contributor Michael Eric Dyson calls the president`s remarks, quote, "Extremely disappointing," media writer Elon James White tweeted, "I get Obama`s role, but if he can`t speak directly to this situation, then what president will?" After the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, President Obama took to the podium to say that the young man could have been his own son. It`s the kind of very personal response some people were maybe expecting from the president this time around. And they did get it from his administration. President Obama sent his Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson instead. In a conversation at a community college reporters say that Holder told Ferguson residents, that, quote, "I understand that mistrust. I am the attorney general of the United States, but I`m also a black man." Holder added an anecdote about something that happened when he was a federal prosecutor, living in a nice neighborhood in Washington, D.C. "I think about my time in Georgetown." And I`m running to a picture movie at 8:00 at night, I`m running with my cousin, a police car comes driving up, flashes his lights, yells, where are you going. Hold it. I say, whoa, I`m going to a movie."

To help us talk about the administration`s response, too, to situation in Ferguson we have Michael Eric Dyson, professor of sociology in Georgetown, an MSNBC political analyst whose op-ed we just quoted briefly, it appears in full in this morning`s "Washington Post." We were saving the rest of the thoughts for you to share with us. And also with us is Beth Fouhy, she is back at the table and senior editor at msnbc.com. So, Michael, I`ll start with you. We laid out a little bit of what you said in the opening there. But you talked in this op-ed about you`re watching the monkish silence on race that President Obama has exhibited. I`m just curious if you can just explain more fully your frustration in this moment and more generally what you mean by the monkish silence on race.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, we can count the number of times that President Obama has weighed in. Of course, he has brilliantly and wisely protected his racial capital so that when he does speak, it will make a difference. But I think he`s done too good a job of that. He hasn`t intervened I think in a fashion that allows him to take full advantage of the range of experiences, talents and gifts that he uniquely possesses of any president of the United States of America in history to be able to speak to one of the most exigent and arguably the greatest problem that we`ve confronted as a nation, and that is the issue of race. His personal discomfort with the issue plus the fact that when he speaks about it, true enough, he takes a dive in poll numbers among certain demographics, but guess what, when he speaks about Iraq, the same thing. When he talks about issues of the environment, the same thing. When he talks about gay marriage even among African-American people, the same thing. So, he`s going to take a hit regardless. And with two years left, it`s time to step up I think and at least represent the full range of gifts he has and to speak more seriously and in a more sustained fashion to this issue of race.

KORNACKI: OK, so in this particular case, what is it you`d like to hear him say that he hasn`t said?

DYSON: Well, first of all, the tone of empathy. I mean to come out and first of all underscore the fact that we`ve got to keep the law and order, I get that, then we`ve got to keep the peace, I get that, and make those the major predicates for what we see going on. And then, by the way, also, citizens should be protected and have a right to peaceful protests without acknowledging the vicious history of assault upon African-American and Latino people in this country by the state. Police repression, police aggression, police execution, if you will, of African-American men and women, the degree to which black people have been vulnerable, to rebuff in the criminal justice system and the degree to which the criminal justice system has worked vigorously against the interest of African-American and Latino people, in other words, to show us he understands that issue and don`t recriminalize young black people the way he did in his second set of Ferguson remarks when he talked about the fact that, you know, some young black men commit crime and they must be punished. Well, how tone deaf is that while in the midst of a riotous or rebellious uprising, because of the fact that black people haven`t had equal access to justice and protection under the law, to then further criminalize them by making such, I think, an ill-considered statement.

KORNACKI: OK, so, Beth, that`s the criticism. And Michael is not alone in making some of those critiques toward the administration. From the administration`s perspective, what is the reasoning, what is the thinking behind the approach the president has taken here?

FOUHY: Yeah, it does seem really regrettable, right. You know, the first black president is so hamstrung about speaking on these issues. But .

KORNACKI: He has spoken before. I mean in his defining speech in 2008 in the campaign, it was the speech on race.

FOUHY: Right. But that was during the primary that was during the Democratic primary where he still needed to win that race with Hillary Rodham Clinton. And so, he was speaking primarily to Democratic voters at that point. Now he has got to speak to the country. He`s a very polarizing president, especially among regrettably many white voters. We have got to get through 2014. And the states where Senate races really matter are in states that have a lot of, the white working class population that have never, ever warmed to this president. We are talking about Kentucky where a Democrat could win, actually, knock off Mitch McConnell. We are talking about places like Louisiana, North Carolina. These are places where white working class folks who are Democrats need to come out. He cannot - these Senate races cannot just be won on the strength of the black vote.

KORNACKI: So, the idea is if he weighs in aggressively on this issue, it stirs up - it potentially stirs up some kind of backlash --

FOUHY: Right.

KORNACKI: It could cost Democrats - is that what you`re thinking?

FOUHY: Right. And it could jeopardize - it could jeopardize Senate Democratic senators in those places and then result in a Republican Senate, which would be a disaster for many black voters.

KORNACKI: So, Michael, let me ask you about that. You know, that`s not just about Obama`s poll numbers, they are saying, it`s specifically about Democrats holding on to the Senate. So, in light of that concern and the fact that the administration sent - you know, Eric, I mean the attorney general from any administration rarely goes to the scene of anything like this. The administration sent Eric Holder in there clearly in terms of its actual power through the Justice Department, is taking this very seriously. Is that not a balance you can be comfortable with?

DYSON: I think that Eric Holder is leading and Obama is following. Let`s not pretend - every president - Why isn`t every cabinet member then tasked with the demand of the president to figure out a way to engage issues of race in housing and urban development and the environment and the like. So, let`s not - let`s not exactly make Eric Holder a puppet of Barack Obama or at least a shadow. He is, of course, representative of that administration. But he represents his own views, his own understanding of what`s going on there. And he makes comments that I think are far closer to what we`re aiming for here than the president has. Number two, look, if the price of admission for me into the party is to me suppress my own identity and my interests - because we`re not asking, right? We are asking African-American people look aside because right now your interests cannot be as compelling as the interest of white working class people who will never love Obama even within the Democratic Party. With two years left in his administration, if not now, when? When will African-American people be able to conscientiously articulate their views without fear that it will upset a white person or the fact that the president of the United States of America who understands how complicated a calculation, this is, figures out a way not only at this point when the 2014 midterms are at stake, but even long before this and after this. There will never be enough pressure to leverage for the White House to be able to speak out.

And let`s be clear, unless President Obama is put into some graceful pressure, he will never speak out, and I think African-American people who support him like I have -- I have been a two-term surrogate of President Obama. I have spoken mostly in advocacy of his policies and in strong defense of his presidency. But I think the price of my support cannot be the suppression of my voice or the blunting of my consciousness as I tell the truth about issues of race in America. And I wish he did, because he`s got a far bigger pull at pulpit. And the ability to really make a difference.

KORNACKI: All right. Some strong criticism. My thanks to MSNBC political analyst Michael Eric Dyson. I appreciate your perspective this morning, and msnbc.com senior editor Beth Fouhy, also appreciate you joining us as well.

An update right now on the breaking new we are telling you about at the start of the show out of North Carolina- excuse me, Northern California. We`re getting our first video of the 6.0 magnitude earthquake that hit the San Francisco Bay Area this morning. A quake center about six miles outside of Napa. These pictures are coming in from our NBC affiliate in Santa Cruz. That`s KMTV. Tremors were felt as far south as Santa Cruz, as far north as Sacramento. U.S. Geological Survey says it`s the biggest earthquake to strike the area since the 1979 San Francisco earthquake that caused extensive damage to the Bay Bridge and killed dozens. This morning there are reports of structural damage coming in? No reported injuries at this time. More details as they come in. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: Another week and another former top aide to President Obama has taken a new job that`s generating a little bit of controversy. It was on Tuesday that we learned that Obama`s 2008 campaign manager, former White House aide David Plouffe is going to work for the Silicon Valley car service Uber. The company which connects users and drivers through a cell phone app is fighting to break in to urban markets and is sparring with the taxi industry and their strong unions. Democrats traditionally support unions, they don`t usually go after unions. But in this new roll, the taxi unions will be public enemy number one for David Plouffie. Here is how the CEO of Uber described the struggle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRAVIS KALANICK, UBER CEO: We`re in this political campaign and the candidate is Uber and the opponent is (EXPLETIVE DELETED) taxi.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: Plouffe`s new job follows two more senior Obama staffers who`ve also picked fights with the organized labor, the president`s former spokesman Robert Gibbs and Ben LaBolt recently signed on with an advocacy group that`s trying to gut teacher tenure, a coveted benefit that teachers unions have fought hard for over the years. Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers told msnbc.com that Gibbs and LaBolt are "working for clients who are trying to undermine public education by pitting teachers against students, subscribing to a theory that to help kids, you have to hurt teachers."

And there`s Obama`s 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina who`s now leading British Prime Minister David Cameron`s campaign for reelection in the U.K. Buzzfeed reports that Conservative Party, the Cameron`s party is campaigning on a platform that includes new rules for English labor that would make it close to impossible for workers to go on strike. And Messina responded, quote, "I am not taking on unions. There`s no example of that." But Messina is facing down his old colleague and Obama aide David Axelrod who`s leading up the campaign for Britain`s Labor Party, a striking divide within the Democratic Party that is now playing out overseas. So, what do these riffs mean for the future of the Democratic Party? Do these high profile appointments mean Democrats are shifting away from staunch support for organized labor? Or are these advisors out liars? Joining me to debate the future of the Democratic Party, the Democratic coalition is Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America`s Future and Jim Kessler, he`s the vice president of Third Way.

So, Roger, I`ll start with you. There does seem to be a pattern. I know it`s just a data set would be a little bit small here, but when you`re looking at these people who are very close, you know, very close politically to President Obama taking these positions with ventures that are at this point sort of have an acrimonious relationship with organized labor, what does this say to you about a schism within the Democratic Party?

ROGER HICKEY, CAMPAIGH FOR AMERICA`S FUTURE: Well, Steve, let me - let me put this in context. Most activists that I know are now working on conveying of economic populous message to the voters for 2014. So, for example, the enemy is the Republicans, it`s Paul Ryan who has got a new book out and everywhere he goes, activists are out there with picket signs asking about his austerity budgets, asking about his plans to cut Social Security and Medicare. That`s the real focus of most Democrats. And in a sense, the career plans of these former Obama people are at a distraction. They`re following, unfortunately the old path of many Republican and Democratic consultants, and they are good people to have on your side in an election campaign, and I wish they were focused on winning back the House and taking - and keeping the Senate. Instead, they`re following the path that the old Washington wag described as, they came to Washington to do good and they stayed to do well for themselves. They are feathering their own nests right now.

KORNACKI: Well, so, Jim, what does it - what does this say to you when you see stories like, the stories like David Plouffe and Uber this week? Does that say something to you about the nature of the Democratic Party right now?

JIM KESSLER, THIRD WAY: Let me start with Jim Messina. Because, I think, too much has been made of him working for Cameron in England. The Conservative Party in Great Britain is not like the conservative party in the United States. I think Cameron is more similar to a lot of Democrats, you know, in this country. So I think, you know, he`s not working for the Tom DeLay of Great Britain.

KORNACKI: Sure, It`s a little different. But isn`t - I mean there`s sort of this historical relationship between the Labor Party and the Democratic Party. New Labor, Tony Blair, new Democratic Party, Bill Clinton. You know, David Axelrod working with Labor - It does say something, I mean the Conservative Party in Britain, obviously, the party of austerity over there.

KESSLER: That`s true. And I`m not saying that there aren`t, you know, some places where the conservative party in Britain has some -- resembles in some ways the Republican Party here. But it`s in no way - you know, they`re very, very different. And you can be a progressive and, you know, you could be for labor or you could be for Cameron.

KORNACKI: Sure. Socially speaking, culturally speaking, obviously, much more. But OK, we`re talking about teachers unions, we`re talking about Uber, taxi unions, this sort of - the relationships of the Democratic Party and Unions.

KESSLER: Right. So, look, so, first of all, I don`t think - if you look at Plouffe and Gibbs and LaBolt, like I don`t think this is a real departure for them. Because if you look at what their role was in the Democratic Party, they were disrupters. I mean they found a different way to run campaigns. And if they hadn`t been disrupters within the political system, Barack Obama wouldn`t be president. And look, I think they`re looking at other places like taxis, which probably could use some disruption, and teaching, same as well, in which they`re saying is there a new model that we can bring? And look, the situation with teaching is, we`re going to need to hire 2 million new teachers in the next ten years. Right now mot teachers, more than half, about half come from the bottom third of their graduating class. Like something is wrong with the teaching profession right now. We can`t just pretend that, you know, everything is going well. And look, I think this is a healthy debate. I don`t mind that this is happening within the Democratic Party.

KORNACKI: Well, let`s pick up this issue on teachers and the teacher`s union. Because something Jim says there does jump out at me and that is that the National Education Association right now is calling for Arne Duncan`s resignation. This is the, you know, the President Obama`s Education Secretary. Race to the top obviously, is something that sort of a new way of thinking, a different way of thinking about education as an initiative from this administration. So, seeing top aides go off and join through the anti tenure movement maybe not entirely inconsistent with what this administration has done on education.

HICKEY: Yeah, there`s a real debate going on within the Democratic Party about education. And we`ve got to be on the side of the American people who think that teachers are part of the solution, not part of the problem. And that`s the problem with the Gibbs approach, the camel ground approach to blaming teachers. And the more Democrats are associated with this campaign against teachers, against teachers` unions, they`re going to reap a whirlwind. I mean look at Chicago where Mayor Rahm Emanuel opposed a strike and went after the teachers. He is less popular right now than the head of the teachers union in Chicago. This is electoral silliness for the Democratic Party to be attacking one of its key constituents. And the key people on the front lines of education are teachers.

KORNACKI: Roger, where does the impetus for this come from? Where does the impetus for - come from, where does the impetus for everything that Arne Duncan`s done that has the NEA call for his resignation come from? Where is the impetus for, you know, for X-Obama aides to go off and work with - come from?

HICKEY: Unfortunately there`s a lot of money out there. Some people who are running private school systems, privatized school systems, there`s a lot of Wall Street money going into this so-called reform movement. And it`s all turning too many Democrats in the wrong direction on education.

KESSLER: Roger. I think that`s an oversimplification.

HICKEY: This is an election year right now and the Democrats have to be on the side of more resources and more power to the teachers, not attacking teachers as a villain. That is a mistake politically and in terms of policy.

KORNACKI: All right we - I know Jim wants to get in. We`ll pick this up in one second, we`ll continue the conversation on the other side. First, though, have some more information, the latest on the information coming in this hour about this morning`s 6.0 earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area, centered six miles outside Napa, the Napa County fire department confirms to the "Los Angeles Times" they are being swamped with calls including now injuries. It`s still unclear how serious those injuries might be because they`re still responding to those calls.

These pictures you are seeing, they come to us from our NBC affiliate KNTV in San Jose. We`ll update with more information as soon as it becomes available. And we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: All right. Picking back, and picking our conversation back up here. And Jim, I wanted to pick up on Roger`s point and ask about how much of this tension and how much of this divide we are talking about in the Democratic Party, when it comes to attitudes about unions, I wonder how much of this is driven by Silicon Valley, because Silicon Valley is becoming Silicon Valley is becoming, you know, such a source, a huge source of campaign cash obviously, you know, for Democrats these days. And Silicon Valley is sort of the heart of innovation. And the idea of innovation is something that Democrats very much like to harness. But at the same time, when it comes to unions, Silicon Valley is not really on the same page as the Democratic Party. Is that a big source of this tension?

KESSLER: Well, there`s tons of money in politics now, unprecedented amounts, especially since Citizens United. And, you know, I think that has a perverse impact on the debate, on every single debate that`s out there. I`m not - look, I know that there`s some Silicon Valley money in the teacher reform movement, but the goal of -- Democrats, we should be supporting teachers. But - and there`s a lot of great teachers out there for sure. But there`s also a lot of teachers out there who aren`t great, or anything but great. And, you know, a system that you have out there in which it`s very, very difficult to remove teachers who aren`t good. I mean that - that`s not serving anybody well. And I think regardless of where the money is coming from, if we can`t have an honest conversation about how to get rid of teachers who don`t perform, our kids are going to be in trouble. And if our kids are in trouble, they are not going to survive in this very difficult economy that`s going to be the 21st century economy. So, I think we have got to have this discussion within the Democratic Party. Is there too much money involved in it? Of course. There always is now in politics. That`s a shame. But this discussion ought to happen.

KORNACKI: All right, I have got to end the discussion here. I`m really sorry. We`ve got breaking news and it`s just sort of eating into our time a little bit. I want to thank, though, Roger Hickey, the Campaign for America`s Future, Jim Kessler of Third Way for joining us today.

KESSLER: Thank you.

KORNACKI: We appreciate that. And coming up, could it be a last minute spoiler in one of the most overlooked yet still important races in the country? A big surprising development this week. We`re going to tell you about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: We can`t blame you if you haven`t been paying close attention to the Senate race in Kansas. After all, the last time a Democrat won a Senate race in Kansas, it was 1932. And to the extent you have been paying attention to this year`s race, well, you probably stopped doing so a few weeks ago when long-time Republican incumbent Pat Roberts held off his Tea Party challenger Milton Wolf in the GOP primary. Wolf might have been the kind of erratic far right candidate who could have maybe endangered the seat for the GOP. At least that`s how the thinking went. But Roberts is a known commodity. It`s Kansas, after all, so he`d be fine in the fall. That was the thinking, but maybe it`s time to start paying attention to Kansas again. Because a surprising new poll this week suggests that this Senate race, the race in deep red Kansas could end up as the sleeper race of 2014, the one that no one thought would be competitive, but ends up being a dogfight.

Here is Pat Roberts` current approval rating with voters, according to a new PPP poll. It`s 27 percent, that`s a poisonous level for an incumbent. 27 percent. His longevity, 34 years in Washington is probably hurting him here. A revelation that he seems to live in someone else`s house on a golf course to maintain his Kansas residency, that`s not helping either. There`s also the civil war that`s now raging in the Kansas Republican Party between the Tea Party right and the more pragmatic traditional party establishment, the civil war that recently led 100 Republican officials to turn on Republican Governor Sam Brownback and to endorse his Democratic opponent. That intraparty Republican blood bath may be taking a toll on Roberts as well. But here`s the catch: Roberts has two opponents this fall. There`s Democrat Chad Taylor, he`s a district attorney from Topeka Area, and there`s independent Greg Orman, a businessman who used to be a Democrat.

And look at this, in the new poll, Roberts is leading, but with only 32 percent of the vote with Taylor, the Democrat at 25 and Orman, the independent at 23. And Taylor has struggled to raise money so far and to attract support from his own party. And now, there are even some suggesting that he drop out of the race to give Orman a clear shot at knocking off Roberts. Taylor is scoffing at that talk. But look at this. In a two-way race, the same poll shows that Roberts, the Republican would lose to Orman by ten points, 43 to 33. Like I said, this feels like a race you`re going to want to keep an eye on this fall.

And joining me now to talk about it is the independent candidate for Senate in Kansas, Greg Orman. Greg, thanks for taking a few minutes this morning. So, let`s just understand where you`re coming from here ideologically. Because you - I think six years ago when Pat Roberts was last up for reelection, you were initially - you were interested in running against him as a Democrat. Now you`re running as an independent. Why aren`t you a Democrat anymore?

GREG ORMAN (I), KANSAS SENATE CANDIDATE: Well, you know, I`m fiscally responsible and socially tolerant and have never really felt like I had a perfect home in either party. Historically I`ve tried the Republican Party, I`ve tried the Democratic Party. And I`ve just finally decided that if we`re going to change things in Washington, we`ve got to attack the two-party system and stop supporting it.

KORNACKI: Do you want - because look at those numbers and it just screams out, if this is a one-on-one race, you have a real shot here to knock off Pat Roberts. If it`s a three-way race, it`s muddled, and it`s a lot more complicated for you. Do you want your Democratic opponent to drop out of this race?

ORMAN: Well, we actually think that our message resonates with Kansans from across the political spectrum. And we think we can win a three-way race. So, from our perspective, our job is really just to go out, talk to Kansans, deliver our message to them and make sure that they have the opportunity to make an informed decision in the fall. And I think if they have that opportunity, I think they`re going to see that they like what they`re hearing from our campaign.

KORNACKI: I should note that we reached out to Chad Taylor and invited him on the program and we`d extend that invitation for the future as well. But Greg let me ask you, if you are successful, the million dollar question, I think, everybody will be asking you during this campaign is, you`re going to have to choose sides in the Senate. Do you want to give - do you want to vote to give Democrats control of the Senate or Republicans control of the Senate. Even if you an independent, if you are elected, you could have the deciding vote after this fall`s election. Which side would you vote for?

ORMAN: Well, you know, I think that`s a great point, Steve. And ultimately, if I get elected there`s a reasonable chance that neither party will have a majority in Washington. And if that`s the case, what I`ve said is I`m going to caucus with whichever party is willing to actually go to Washington and start trying to solve problems as opposed to just pleasing the, extremists in their own base.

KORNACKI: But you - looking at those two parties right now, do you have a sense which one has done a better job of that?

ORMAN: Well, you know, frankly, I think both parties have been sending extremists to Washington. People are more interested in pleasing the partisans in their own base and really not solving problems. And I think both parties are actually guilty of that sort of behavior. Really I think in an attempt to make sure they win elections and not solve problems for the American people.

KORNACKI: Let`s try to nail you down on a few issues here. The Affordable Care Act, obviously everybody talks about it a lot. People who say repeal the Affordable Care Act. Is that something you agree with?

ORMAN: Well, you know, I look at this issue a little differently. We had a health care affordability issue before the Affordable Care Act and we have health care affordability issue today. I run businesses. And every year the first question we have to answer before we can decide what kind of raises we can give our employees is how high have health care costs gone? And every year they just keep going up. So, I think we have a real issue with health care in this country, and I think the Affordable Care Act has just been a lightning rod for political criticism and for political positioning on both sides.

KORNACKI: But Greg, but Greg it`s the law. So do you want the law to stay on the books and to work to try to improve the law or do you want the law off the books?

ORMAN: Well, as long as the president is in the White House, I think it`s impractical to say that the law is going to go off the books. So, I think what we ultimately need to do is look at the things that are driving health care costs in this country and try to solve the problem in a real rational common sense way as opposed to positioning for political gain here.

KORNACKI: Kansas, your state, Sam Brownback, the Republican governor, very conservative Republican governor, has refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, that`s an option that the states have. Do you want your state - do you want Kansas to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act?

ORMAN: Well, you know, I think the message that Governor Brownback has sent to the working poor in Kansas is, if you have a health care crisis, your best solution is to quit your job. And I think that`s a bad message to send. I think we have a real issue in Kansas with our critical access facilities that are now underfunded as a result of Governor Brownback`s decision. And so, ultimately I think he`s made a poor decision there.

KORNACKI: So, you would like it expanded. On the question of immigration, this has been the issue, one of the issues that seems to have paralyzed Washington. A bill passed the Senate last year, it`s languishing in the House that would provide a path to citizenship, it would boost up border security and provide a long-term path to citizenship, somewhere in the neighborhood of ten to 13 years for undocumented people who meet certain thresholds and pay certain fines. Is that legislation that you would support in the Senate?

ORMAN: Well, and Steve, I think you raised a critical point there, which is it does boost border security. And so, we`ve talked about our immigration reform and said it needs to be tough, practical and fair. It does need to boost border security, but it also needs to be practical. We have got over 11 million people living in this country, and it`s just impractical to say that we`re going to send them all home. And frankly, in Kansas, there are whole industries and whole towns like Garden City and Dodge City that would be absolutely devastated if we made decisions like that. But I also think it needs to be fair to taxpayers. And what I mean by that is, I think if you`re here on an undocumented basis, you should have to register with ICE, you should have to pay a fine or perform some community service as an acknowledgment that the law has been broken. And then I think if you obey our laws, you hold down a job, you pay taxes, you should be able to stay here.

KORNACKI: All right, Greg, and one quick final question. Are you voting for Sam Brownback or Paul Davis for governor?

ORMAN: You know, I`m not making that decision public. I think your voting behavior is ultimately a private behavior. I`m looking for people who want to go to Washington and in this case go to Topeka and solve problems, work in a bipartisan way, understand that Kansas .

KORNACKI: All right.

ORMAN: Has a long tradition of bipartisanship. And that`s what I`m looking for in elected officials.

KORNACKI: All right. My thanks to Greg Orman, Senate candidate in Kansas for joining us this morning. I appreciate that.

Up next, the latest on the biggest earthquake to hit northern California in 25 years as soon as we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: We want to update you now on this morning`s 6.0 earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area, centered about six miles outside of Napa in California wine country. Photos have been flooding in this hour showing some of the damage that`s been reported including gas leaks, downed power lines and at least one fire. Officials are also on the lookout for structural damage to bridges. A hospital in Napa says "Los Angeles Times" they are receiving calls of injuries, mostly cuts from glass. We`ll update as more information becomes available. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: The candidate who has got Scott Walker fighting for his political life.

Good morning again. Thanks for getting up and staying with us this Sunday morning. We`ll keep you updated throughout the hour on the latest information coming in about this morning`s 6.0 earthquake in northern California.

But first, one of the biggest political stories of the weekend are the new documents that reveal the inner workings of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker`s fund-raising operation. Emails from top aides show that Walker`s campaign directed major donors to PACs that supported him. These are ostensibly independent committees that are supposed to have no coordination with his official campaign whatsoever. It isn`t clear from the documents, however, whether Walker himself played a role in the actions of his team. Walker`s campaign said in a statement that he is not a target of the investigation. And this spring, a federal judge shut down an investigation into the financing of pro-Walker efforts in the 2012 Wisconsin recall election, although that judge`s decision could still be reversed by the appeals court.

Special prosecutor who had been looking into the matter said in June that Walker was not a target of the probe at that time that it was shut down.

Of course, this ongoing saga provides an uncomfortable backdrop for Walker as he seeks re-election as governor this fall, a race that is only now emerging on the national political radar. After all, many political observers came into this year believing that Democrats had already taken their best shot at Walker and that they missed. He was elected governor in 2010 back in the Republican midterm wave that year, a conservative governor in a state that is generally Democratic. And then Scott Walker stripped unions of powers and benefits in a place that historically has been friendly to labor, sparking unprecedented at the state capitol that made Madison the epicenter of the political world back in 2011. But in that recall election in 2012, with Democrats around the country uniting to try to take him out and to deliver a message, Walker held his seat, and he did so by a fairly comfortable margin. After that, it seemed reasonable to think that Scott Walker would be in better shape in 2014. That if Democrats couldn`t take him out in that climate, they wouldn`t be able to do it now. But the latest Marquette University Law School poll shows a statistical tossup with Walker actually running a point behind his Democratic challenger, Mary Burke, 48 to 47 percent.

So Mary Burke, the Democratic challenger, who is she? Well, she is a former state commerce secretary, who spent years before that working for her family`s business. Burke`s father founded Trek Bicycle out of a barn in Waterloo. That company has grown into an international brand. And it is this connection that has led Walker to attack Burke as an opponent of not only job creation but business regulations and fair wages.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m making millions of dollars sending jobs overseas that could have been done in Wisconsin, to countries where women and children might work up to 12 hours a day, earning only $2.00 an hour.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Only $2.00 an hour?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: Some conservatives have met Walker`s attempts to use economic populism to attack Burke with criticism. The Wall Street Journal said he was channeling Barack Obama`s 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney. It`s difficult to tell if the attacks have gained traction. And what is -- what is only one issue that could decide a very close race this fall.

I want to get to more of those issues now with my guest, Mary Burke, she is the Democratic nominee for governor of Wisconsin. She joins us now.

Mary, thanks for taking a few minutes this morning. Let`s just start with the big news, it`s big news in Wisconsin this weekend, it`s big news nationally this weekend. And that is, these documents from prosecutors, and again, this investigation sort of in a holding pattern right now, but these documents from their work coming to light on Friday and basically showing that prosecutors seem to believe that the governor himself was seeking out donations for the Wisconsin Club for Growth, this supposedly independent group, that was then directing money to other PACs, all these supposedly independent groups that were helping him fight the recall effort, that were on his side in the recall effort.

Again, the prosecutors saying that when this investigation was shut down, they were not looking into the governor himself. These documents suggest maybe they`re looking at his campaign manager. I guess my question to you is, when you look at all this, do you think that Governor Walker committed a crime here?

MARY BURKE, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN: Well, Steve, it`s great to be with you. And if this wasn`t illegal, frankly, it should be. Across this country and certainly in Wisconsin, people are sick of the special interest money in politics. They are losing faith in elected officials because of things just like this. A $700,000 donation from a mining company that had legislation in process that would have allowed it to profit from this legislation.

So if it`s not illegal, it should be. And I`m running for governor because I`m going to focus on the issues that matter most to the people in Wisconsin. Right now, our economy is lagging. We`re dead last in the Midwest in terms of job creation. And as a business executive, I know we can do better. We have to put people ahead of the special interests. We have to put common sense solutions ahead of the politics.

KORNACKI: And let`s pick up on that. We played a clip from the attack ad that they`re using against you, trying to turn -- take your business record and turn it against you. The brand Trek Bicycles, the family business here. I think everybody nationally has probably heard of Trek Bicycles. One of the points of attack or one of the points of criticism from the Walker campaign is they`re saying, hey, basically every bike that Trek makes, every bike that you see in this country that has the Trek name on it is actually made overseas. I think 98, 99 percent, something like that. How do you square that with the idea of creating jobs in the United States?

BURKE: Trek makes more bikes in the United States and in Wisconsin than any other bike company in the entire country and in the world.

KORNACKI: But the vast majority are made overseas, isn`t that right?

BURKE: It`s a little bit like -- unfortunately, so many industries here in the U.S. And as governor, I want to fight to level the playing field, because it`s very difficult for manufacturers, Wisconsin manufacturers, to compete against other countries that have much lower wages, different regulations. And so Trek is proud to produce more bikes here in the U.S. and Wisconsin than any other company. It employs nearly 1,000 people right here in Wisconsin, a company started by my dad nearly 40 years ago.

KORNACKI: So let`s -- we talk about Wisconsin nationally. I think everybody obviously -- we showed the scenes there from 2011. Everybody remembers the protests, everybody remembers the recall. And everybody remembers that the big issue in Wisconsin politics and the big reason everybody was talking about it nationally had to do with the power of collective bargaining for public employee unions and also -- this was called Act 10, this was the law Scott Walker put through in his first year as governor. And it sparked all these protests. It restricted the rights to collectively bargain for public employees and it also demanded that they contribute more in terms of their pension costs and their health care costs.

I want to look at those two issues with you. First of all, the increased contributions from public employees for pensions and for health care. That was part of this law that was part of this big controversy. If you`re elected governor, would you seek to roll back those increased contributions?

BURKE: No. I`ve been very clear from the start. I think it was only fair to ask for contributions to health care and to pensions. But I also endorse the right to collectively bargain. I don`t think that that stands in the way of making sure that we have effective, efficient, and accountable government.

And I know from being at Trek that an organization is only as good as its people. And I want to make sure that in the public sector, in our schools, in our police departments, our fire departments, we`re able to attract and keep good people. They need to be able to be paid fair wages. But we also need to make sure people are accountable, and that we`re accountable not only to the taxpayers, but the citizens of Wisconsin.

KORNACKI: So when you talk about restoring those collective bargaining rights that were lost for public employees in 2011, a lot of people say it might take -- a lot of this depends obviously on the makeup of the legislature -- but it might take doing something as dramatic as Scott Walker did in 2011. Look what he had to put up with in terms of those protests to get his way. If you want to restore those collective bargaining rights -- for instance, would you be willing to say you wouldn`t sign a budget unless it included the return of those collective bargaining rights?

BURKE: No, I`m not going to say that. I need to work with the Republican legislature at this point. But the way I have done business my entire life is to find common ground, to make sure that we are moving forward, that we get the best ideas on the table. And frankly, I don`t care if they`re Democratic or Republican ideas. Let`s go with the ones that are going to work and then let`s bring people together to do that work. And I`m going to find common ground with the Republicans and make sure we are focused on the issues that matter to working families here in Wisconsin, and that`s jobs.

And our economy is lagging. Under Scott Walker, we are dead last in the Midwest for job creation. We need someone who actually knows how to create jobs. I started my own business when I was in my 20s. We`re 46th in the country in terms of new businesses started. I want to make sure that Wisconsin`s economy is a leader instead of a lagger.

KORNACKI: Was it a mistake for Democrats to try to recall Walker in 2012?

BURKE: I think it`s only part of the Democratic process, that people in a state are able to put that to the voters again. If there are issues and if they get enough of that support to do that, and people did get that -- enough signatures to bring those issues and to put Governor Walker back to the position where he needed to justify his position as governor.

KORNACKI: All right, Mary Burke, Democratic nominee for governor of Wisconsin. It is a tossup race right now. Thank you very much for taking a few minutes and joining us this morning. Good luck on the campaign trail this fall. And we should say, we have also extended an invitation to Governor Walker to join us on a future program. We hope to talk to him as well.

Turning now to reports that are just coming in now of a second earthquake in California this morning, not an aftershock, but another earthquake, this time in Southern California, a much smaller one though, west of the Los Angeles area, near San Bernardino in Big Bear City, a 3.0 quake. In the northern part of the state, meanwhile, up in wine country outside of San Francisco, there was a 6.0 earthquake early this morning. There are initial reports of injuries at a Napa area hospital. The Los Angeles Times also reports that the California Highway Patrol says it has discovered that a state road is severely cracked. We`ll be right back with more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: Texas Governor Rick Perry is taking something of a victory lap this week, the same week he also had his mug shot taken. On Tuesday, Perry turned himself in at the Travis County courthouse on charges of abusing official power and coercion of a public official. This stems from Perry trying to get a Democratic district attorney to resign her office after she was arrested for driving under the influence and acted belligerently toward police officers. Prosecutors allege that Perry broke the law by threatening to veto out funding for her office if she failed to resign. And when she didn`t, he did veto more than $7 million in funding for her office. Perry maintains he did nothing wrong here, and it`s entirely within his power as governor to use his line item veto as he sees fit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS: I remain focused on the work of the people of this state, doing the job I was elected to do, and I will not be distracted by these baseless political charges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: And on Friday, Perry went north to New Hampshire, continuing his campaign for an unannounced second bid for president. His PAC, RickPac it`s called, is even selling t-shirts with his mug shot on it, "wanted," it says, "for securing the border and defeating Democrats." And at that event in New Hampshire, Perry insisted that the charges against him are motivated by liberals and partisan politics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PERRY: If you all are not aware, Texas is a pretty red state now, but I refer to Travis County as the blueberry in the tomato soup, if you know what I mean.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: Beyond conservatives, many Democrats and major news outlets are also rejecting the charges against Perry. The New York Times and the Washington Post both published editorials dismissing the indictment. Yet when it comes to the Texas media, the reaction hasn`t been quite as uniform. And there are those who say the charges against Perry are more serious than national observers are treating them. For example, there was the story earlier this week that Perry did not pressure two other district attorneys to resign after drunk driving arrests. Republican district attorneys. In a story for the Austin American Statesman this morning, Tony Plohetski writes that despite winning in the court of public opinion, Perry still faces very tough challenges in the court of law. Plohetski caught up with Perry in an elevator this week as the governor was leaving a national television appearance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY PLOHETSKI, AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN: OK, first of all, how are you?

PERRY: How do I look? Do I look pretty good?

PLOHETSKI: How are you coping with all this? You look like you`re hanging in there.

PERRY: Come on, you can give me better than that.

PLOHETSKI: So you believe this whole thing is about partisan politics? Why do you say that? What makes you say that?

PERRY: Let`s just look at what Alan Dershowitz says, let`s see what Jonathan Chait says. These are men and women who are on the Democrat side of the aisle, who say it`s outrageous, totalitarian. I mean, those are Democrats saying that. That`s not me.

PLOHETSKI: Did you threaten Rosemary Lehmberg?

PERRY: I clearly told the folks what I was going to do with the funding, and I did that. There wasn`t any hiding it. I spoke clearly that I had lost confidence in her after seeing the video.

PLOHETSKI: When do you plan to go on down there to -- OK, thank you very much?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: I think he meant Jonathan Chait there. Anyway, joining me now to answer all the questions, we have reporter Tony Plohetski of the American Statesman and KDU TV in Austin. And in Houston, defense attorney Brian Wice, who represented former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay against charges from the Travis County District Attorney`s Office. Hopefully, we`re going to get a little bit of clarity here because I know we have a lot of people say if you look at the national media, you get one story, if you talk to the Texas media, you get another story about what`s going on. We`ll try to get to the bottom of this.

Tony, I`ll start with you. I know we say the Perry defenses here, one of the Perry defenses here is this is political, this is a political prosecution. It occurs to me, to be wrong-headed, it doesn`t have to be political, it could just be overzealous. But that said, what are -- you`re down there in Texas, you are covering this as close as anybody, what are we not seeing nationally, what do we need to know from a Texas perspective that maybe has not bled through the national coverage yet?

PLOHETSKI: Here is the deal, Steve. This grand jury met over several months. We don`t know exactly what happened behind those closed doors. Grand jury meetings and deliberations are secret. So this prosecutor, this special prosecutor in this case, Michael McCrum, could have a well of evidence that we have not seen or heard about. So I think that`s one thing that`s really getting lost in all of the national discussion, is that this grand jury met in secret, behind closed doors. They heard from witnesses in this case. They looked at boxes of evidence. I camped outside the grand jury room and saw boxes of evidence going in and out of that grand jury room, secret, confidential evidence.

We don`t know what it is. This case could potentially be a lot stronger than anyone thinks it could be based on what we know and what`s been in the public so far.

KORNACKI: OK, so there is that potential, but in terms of what exactly he`s accused of here, without knowing all the specifics of the evidence, in terms of the accusations here, this rests on, it`s not just the use of a veto, it`s the threat of a veto. Right? This is the part I had trouble understanding. Maybe you can explain here, it`s not that he used the veto to cut out the funding. Because apparently he`s legally protected in using the veto, but threatening the veto is the potential legal issue?

PLOHETSKI: That`s exactly right. The governor keeps shouting from the rooftops, I have constitutional veto authority. And no one is questioning that. What is under question here is the fact that he preceded that use of his veto by threatening a duly elected district attorney, a Democratic district attorney here in Travis County after her drunk driving arrest, you must resign your office if you want your public integrity unit, which again, investigates statewide, $7.5 million, a two-year allotment. She didn`t resign. The governor carried out the threat. It`s the threat, not the veto itself, that has caused the governor potential legal problems here.

KORNACKI: So, Brian, this is the part that I`m having trouble with. The law there, my understanding then is the law in Texas is saying that a veto, the actual act of a governor vetoing something, of Rick Perry vetoing out funding for this office, cannot be coercive. But as Tony is saying, the threat of a veto is coercive. But what is the threat of the veto without an actual veto? How can you separate those two things? A veto threat and a veto go hand in hand, don`t they?

BRIAN WICE, ATTORNEY: I think there`s an opening on the defense team for you, Steve. You`re absolutely right. The law in Texas is simple. It is not a violation of the coercion of a public servant if you have the legal authority to make the threat that you ultimately make.

And what`s ironic about this case is that from all places in Texas, from the Waco court of appeals, the court where a lot of us in this business think due process actually goes to die, held in 1990, under facts remarkably similar to the governor`s situation, that a county judge had the authority to threaten to cut the D.A.`s budget if they didn`t fire an assistant D.A. At the end of the day, you said it yourself, a veto is itself is a threat. And I think that while what went on behind those closed doors is secret, this case may ultimately be weaker.

I have a funny feeling that David Botsford (ph), the governor`s lawyer, probably interviewed most if not all of those witnesses before they hit the inside of the grand jury room. I can assure you, if there`s a proverbial smoking gun, David Botsford and the governor by extension would not be nearly as sanguine as they are now.

KORNACKI: Brian, I have a hard time seeing that this is some political plot, this is a political conspiracy. Do you think it`s a political vendetta, the way Rick Perry is saying it is?

WICE: Look, I have the utmost respect for senior Judge Burt Richardson, who oversaw the grand jury investigation, and for Mike McCrum, the special prosecutor. I don`t think, again, this is about politics as much as it is about the sheer inanity of the charges and the process itself. I don`t care whether or not these guys were Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, Wigs or Tories. This was a runaway train that was initiated by the warlords at Texans for Public Justice, the people who think they have a monopoly on wisdom. The same folks who jump-started the Tom DeLay prosecution. I`m not suggesting that it`s Burt Richardson, I`m not suggesting that it`s Mike McCrum. I`m suggesting that when David Botsford files a pretrial writ, probably as early as tomorrow morning, challenging this prosecution, he`s going to make the claim that this indictment has more holes than the Iraqi navy.

KORNACKI: Tony, let`s fill in some more of the context, again, what you`re seeing in Texas. I`m just trying to process all of this. So there were reports this week also of there are other district attorneys with DUIs, with DUI issues. Republican district attorneys. Rick Perry apparently did not go after them in this fashion. That`s one of the revelations that came out this week. Also, I mean, sort of hanging over all this has been the talk that it wasn`t really because of the DUI that Rick Perry wanted to get rid of this district attorney in Travis County, it was because of another -- it was maybe because she was poking around and her office was poking around in areas that were making Republicans uncomfortable. Can you fill in some of the details there?

PLOHETSKI: Yes. So a couple of things about the Republican district attorneys in other counties here in Texas. The governor didn`t have veto authority over any funds in their offices. So he did not have the same sort of leverage that he did over Rosemary Lehmberg, the Travis County district attorney.

The other thing is that the Rosemary Lehmberg drunk driving arrest happened right here in Austin. She is, of course, based here. Her office is just a couple of blocks from the governor`s mansion. So it was out there for the world to see. And it was an ugly, ugly scene that many people on both sides of the political aisle were talking about in the hours and days immediately after her arrest.

As to the other issue, Democrats have suggested that the governor could have potentially been trying to intercept an investigation that Lehmberg`s office was doing into a cancer research institute here in Texas. It was one of the governor`s hallmarks. And there was an active investigation going on at the time the governor vetoed those funds. That investigation did lead to the indictment of a former CIPRIT (ph) is the name of the organization, CIPRIT official.

But Governor Perry`s attorneys came out during the course of the week and said they have an affidavit from a former chief investigator who was leading that inquiry who said, listen, Governor Perry was never a target of this investigation, and so, you know, they attempted essentially to pour cold water over that theory that the Democrats have put forward.

KORNACKI: In terms of -- there`s a connection there in the court of public opinion that Democrats have made. In terms of evidence that has been introduced in that, is that where it gets into we don`t know what the grand jury had seen, and maybe evidence making that connection from a legal standpoint has been introduced there, or is there anything out in the public square that we know about, that makes that connection, evidence-wise?

PLOHETSKI: There is nothing in the public domain that absolutely makes that connection. We are dealing with political and legal theories right now, but nothing beyond that that any of us have been able to take down.

KORNACKI: OK. We`ll squeeze a quick break in here. I want to get Brian to weigh in on this other piece of it, the other new stuff sort of this week. We`ll take a break on that and we`ll talk also about the political fallout, Tony knows something about that, too. We`ll talk about that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: Before we return to our Rick Perry discussion, here is what we know this hour about this morning`s major 6.0 earthquake in northern California, north of the San Francisco Bay area, in wine country around Napa. An aftershock of 3.6 was felt in the same area about two hours later. At least three homes have been destroyed by fire in a Napa mobile home park. The San Francisco Chronicle reports the water main break is hampering efforts to fight fires. There were also reports of numerous injuries, according to Napa emergency officials. It`s unclear yet how extensive those injuries are, though so far the local hospital says it`s been treating people for cuts from glass.

All right, turning from that back to our discussion of Rick Perry, bring back in Tony Plohetski, the Austin American Statesman, Brian Wice. And Brian, I`ll go to you. So we were just hearing Tony explain this other piece of it. And this is what I`m wondering about from a legal standpoint. And Tony is talking about this cancer center, this cancer institute and there`s an affidavit apparently that says Rick Perry is not the target, was not the target of any of the district attorney`s investigations into that. But, of course, you know, politics is even if Rick Perry isn`t himself the target, who knows, people around him could be, political allies could be. This could be a very politically problematic investigation for Rick Perry. So, when that`s introduced into it, does that raise more of a legal issue here if you`re vetoing out funding because there`s an investigation involving people you have political ties to?

BRIAN WICE, DEFENSE ATTY TO TOM DELAY: If you do, sure. In this case the investigator who has made it clear, that wasn`t the case. And that becomes the ultimate red herring. But Steve, I think that the governor`s problem all along wasn`t with any other elected district attorney in any of the 254 counties in this great state that may have had a DWI or a DUI. His concern was a district attorney who had her finger on a multimillion dollar budget that had the ability to investigate, prosecute and imprison any public official anywhere in Texas. And at the end of the day, when that politician herself has channeled Hannibal Lector and Nick Nolte with her conduct, I think the governor did what everyone of us and including those who didn`t - like me, expected him to do, which was to remove that finger from that investigative trigger. In the end, I think as early as tomorrow, we are going to see a full-bore challenge to the indictment and a pretrial writ followed by the governor`s lead counsel, David Botsford.

KORNACKI: Right, no, I mean ultimately that`s the thing, that`s the problem here for Democrats. I think ultimately politically, at least, is they can argue that Rick Perry had an ulterior motive here. But their, you know, fellow party member gave him an incredible opening here if he did have an ulterior motive. But Tony, in terms of how this is playing out in Texas, we talk about the national reaction, what is the reaction in Texas to this? I don`t know if there`s been any polling yet. But are people mostly behind Rick Perry, are they more concerned down there than they are nationally? What`s your sense of that?

PLOHETSKI: Well, I can tell you that here in Travis County there are people who absolutely feel aggrieved, whether or not it was illegal or not, or whether or not there, you know, was an illegal threat or not, there are people who definitely feel aggrieved here in Travis County by the governor`s veto. You know, Travis County officials had to look under the couch cushions for a spare change to fund the public integrity unit after the governor was vetoed. Some people lost their jobs, others were reassigned. So, it really did cause a problem for the government and for those people, for the local government here in Travis County. You know, there are a number of people who are watching the governor, you know, in New Hampshire, in Washington D.C. earlier this week, sort of shape the public narrative about this whole thing. But at least for Texas Democrats and Travis County Democrats, you know, while they are trying to if they can, match some of what he`s saying, at the same time, their position is this, listen we will see you in court, Governor Perry, have fun with your PR blitz.

KORNACKI: All right. That`s where the story will be on hold for now. But it`s ongoing, we`ll be following it certainly on this show. Talking to both of you again soon. But my thanks to Tony Plohetski, the Austin American statesman, defense attorney Brian Wice for joining us this morning. Appreciate that. And still ahead, will what happens in Vegas stay in Vegas, or will it decide the future of the United States Senate? We will travel to sin city in an effort to find out. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: It took the miracle of miracles to save Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from defeat in the Republican wave of 2010. That miracle`s name was Sharron Angle. Reid won`t face Nevada voters again until 2016, that`s coming up closer than you - sooner than you think. But new numbers show that once again he`s not in an enviable position. And this time Republican have a popular Governor Brian Sandoval waiting in the wings to possibly run against him. We learned this week that the biggest muscle in Republican politics, the Koch brothers, their vast political machine is already gearing up to take Reid down. Politico reports that Koch affiliated non-profits are expanding in Nevada and going on TV to bash the six-term incumbent. Reid has rallied against the Kochs and their political advocacy in more than 20 floor speeches. Now they`re returning the favor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Harry Reid supports new rules at the IRS that unfairly targets certain non-profits. The American Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rule threatens to discourage or sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in America. So, why does Senator Reid support it? Because he hopes to limit the First Amendments rights of private citizens who disagree with him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: And Reid commented on the Koch brothers attacks last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID, (D), NEVADA, SEN. MAJORITY LEADER: When I was walking in here today, someone grabbed me from one of the Washington publications and said the Koch brothers say they`re here organizing in Nevada. And how do you feel about that? And I said why would they be worried about me? What I have done to bother them? Only everything I can, right. The Koch brothers, these two wealthy, wealthy men, they`re in it for one thing, themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: And if signs point to Reid facing an all-out onslaught from conservative groups going into 2016, will that discourage the 74-year-old Senate veteran from running again? Or might it change how he serves out his term as Senate Majority Leader. Well, joining me now from Las Vegas to discuss the impact of Reid`s political peril is the nation`s top Reidologists, the sage of all things, Nevada politics John Ralston of Ralston Reports joins us, and got up very early to do this. So, we really appreciate you taking a few minutes this morning.

JOHN RALSTON, RALSTON REPORTS: Absolutely, John.

KORNACKI: So, the situation for Harry Reid, 2010, he walks in that reelection here and everybody says there`s no way this guy can survive. He catches a break to end all breaks, gets re-elected. Gets six more years. Here we are in 2014, two years out, is he in better position than he was in 2010 in Nevada, is he in worse or is he in about the same position?

RALSTON: I`d say he`s probably in worse, Steve. His numbers are pretty bad. Most polls that I`ve seen show his disapproval rating over 50 percent. And let`s face it, Sharron Angle is a once-in-a-lifetime miracle for someone like Harry Reid, there`s no one like that out there. You mentioned Brian Sandoval. I frankly don`t think the governor is going to run. Although he`s going to get a lot of pressure, I think after this election. He`s up this time. But he has no opposition. He`s going to get 65, 70 percent of the vote. And then you go down and Joe Heck who is a congressman, should he win? He`s probably the second choice. I don`t think he`s interested in running. So, you have a similar situation in the sense that there`s no obvious candidate against Harry Reid. And what Harry Reid will do is not run on his record, he`ll run against his opponent, he`ll try to choose his opponent as he did in 2010. I think he`s planning on running.

KORNACKI: Well, yeah, that seems - in question. I mean because this has been national significance, obviously. It`s been ten years, it`s hard to believe it`s been ten years that he`s been the top Democrat in the Senate right now. We all know Chuck Schumer in New York is probably waiting - wondering when - if 2016 will be the last year for him. So, what makes you think he`s running again? Because he`ll be well into his 70s?

RALSTON: He is 74 as you mentioned. I thought that was kind of an infant in the U.S. Senate. But then nevertheless, I do think that he has nothing else to do, Steve. He is not the kind of guy who wants to become a lobbyist, as I`ve said, he`s not the kind of guy who wants to go to his house, put his feet up on his ottoman and watch baseball. That`s just not Harry Reid. He loves the minutia of the legislative process. However, he has had some health problems. He had a mini stroke about eight or nine years ago. His wife has had a lot of health problems. They just bought a house, they moved closer to their grandchildren and their kids which leads some people to believe he might not run. I can tell you this, I know Harry Reid well enough, that even if he had decided not to run, nobody would know. He would wait until the last possible moment because he wouldn`t make himself a lame duck. And he knows as well as you do as you just mentioned, that Chuck Schumer is right behind him, maybe with his knife coming out of the sheath should something happen in November that is not good for the Democrats. I think he`s running. But unlike some people, I wouldn`t bet everything I have on it.

KORNACKI: It`s interesting. And you mentioned Sandoval. There`s Sandoval, the popular Republican governor, and you`re saying you don`t think Sandoval is going to run in 2016. That will break the hearts of a lot of Republicans nationally, you say. That gives us the - Why are you saying you don`t think he`ll run?

RALSTON: Sandoval loves being governor as much as anyone I have known in the governor`s seat, Steve. He just - he adores every part of the position. He has essentially told people he`s not interested in being a U.S. Senator. He`s much more interested, if he`s not going to be governor, I think, in going back to the federal bench. He used to be a federal judge. And there`s something else, too. I think he might wait until the outcome of the 2016 election and perhaps think about a cabinet appointment. This is one of those weird historical anomalies, Nevada has never had a member of the cabinet in either a Democratic or Republican administration. Sandoval I think knows about that, thinks about that. He would be a likely short-lister for interior or some other cabinet post in either, I think, a Republican or Democratic administration. Having said all that, Steve, as I said, I think once the election is over, the amount of pressure that`s going to come down on Sandoval to run against Reid, he would be an early heavy favorite against Reid. There`s one poll that`s come out that showed him ten points ahead. I think that`s generous to Reid. I don`t count Reid out. Don`t get me wrong, but I think the pressure on Sandoval from the national Republicans as their person to take out Reid is going to be difficult for him to resist. By the way, I think he will resist it. But it`s going to be interesting to see.

KORNACKI: It will be intense. And Brian Sandoval, of course, served on the bench in the first place at the recommendation of Harry Reid, one of those ironies in politics. My thanks to John Ralston of Ralston Reports. Really appreciate you getting up this morning. Thanks for coming on the show.

More information coming in this hour about this morning`s major 6.0 earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area about six miles outside Napa. Two major injuries have been reported in Napa County. No further details at this time. Local hospitals say they`ve also been flooded with moderate injuries. The U.S. Geological Survey says the earthquake struck on a fault line that`s long been dormant. It is believed to be the biggest earthquake to hit the area in 25 years, since the `89 earthquake during the World Series. Most of the damage so far appears to be from fire. "The San Francisco Chronicle" reports for the water main break is hampering efforts to fight the fire. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: So, I`m sure you`ve played this game in your head. I know I`ve probably had. If I won the lottery, what could I do? I could buy a boat, I could get a new car. I don`t need a car in New York City, but I could get a new car, I can buy a vacation home, I could pay off my debts. For me, maybe I would add a skeet ball machine in there, too. The point is you can buy a lot of things. And one ticket was the sole winner in Friday night`s mega millions drawing, and the holder of that ticket now gets to claim a $180 million prize.

But what if I told you that you could enter the lottery without having to buy a ticket, you could be eligible for a grand prize without having to spend a dime. All you would have to do is vote. Now, I haven`t turned this into some kind of an infomercial all of a sudden. The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission voted earlier this month to recommend that a lottery system be tied to voting, that if you cast a ballot, you become eligible to win a prize. And given how low turnout tends to be, especially when it comes to local elections, it`s an intriguing idea. In last year`s election for Los Angeles mayor three out of four eligible voters didn`t cast a ballot. That`s more than 75 percent. So, this is a surefire way to bring more people out to the polls, right? Well, maybe. Because federal law prohibits voters from accepting payment in exchange for casting a ballot in a federal election, but in a California local election where everyone is eligible for the same prize, the L.A. Commission believes they`re in the legal right to do so. But does that defeat the purpose of voting, the idea behind voting? Purists would argue that the right to vote is one of the pillars upon which our republic was established, a privilege for which there shouldn`t be any ulterior motive. We all want to win the mega millions or the Powerball or cash for life. And most would agree that getting more people engaged in the voting process would be a good thing. But is marrying these two concepts a smart thing? Well, joining me now is one of the proponents of the lottery, Loyola Marymount professor Fernando Guerra. So, Fernando, thanks for getting up earlier out there in the West Coast and joining us this morning. So, look, that we give - in the opening, the purist take on this is voting is voting, it`s a sacred fundamental right that we have as Americans, some would say an obligation that we have as Americans. No one should ever be doing it for a prize, no one should ever be doing it for cash. Why is it a good idea to be linking a lottery of some sort to voting?

FERNANDO GUERRA, MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY: Well, first and foremost, I totally agree that it is a privilege and a right and everybody should go out and vote. In an ideal world, that`s the way the system would work. But as we can see over and over, the reality is quite different and we have a 23 percent turnout. And that 75 percent don`t have a voice. Now, there`s a lot of reasons why people don`t vote. But, I think, this lottery would get to the incentive and get people out and it would actually - I believe change the system. And I think we keep taking of talking about reform, and this is one of the thinking outside of the box reforms that`s come up in Los Angeles.

KORNACKI: Well, so, what are we talking about here when it comes to prizes? What - at a million bucks, $100,000? What are we looking at here?

GUERRA: Well, there`s a couple of things. The ethics commission, which is a city department is proposing about 25,000. But see, that would still require that the city council and maybe even a charter -- that is, the voters who do go out and vote to approve the system. And so, I am doubtful that this idea, while it`s a great idea, will get off the ground through the political process. The very process that, you know, prospers from low turnout.

KORNACKI: So, voters would need to approve this before it could go into effect?

GUERRA: The current proposal from the ethics commission, correct. But there is nothing to stop a nonprofit and a wealthy philanthropist to do it on their own. As you mentioned, it`s not against the law in a local election, but it is for a federal election. So, a nonprofit could be set up and you could do it, my proposal would be to do it by district. So that not there`s just one winner in the city, but in Los Angeles, we have 15 council districts that you would have 15 winners and that way it would be spread out throughout the city.

KORNACKI: I got to say, though, to win an election, wouldn`t that sort of, we always talk about, what is the mandate of the new mayor, the new city council, whatever they campaign on this, they won because of this, doesn`t that sort of erode the idea of a mandate, as well. They won because people wanted some cash.

GUERRA: Well, I mean, why do people go out and vote right now? I mean I want to take on the whole myth of the informed voter that everybody who goes out to vote right now. The 23 percent in Los Angeles. And by the way, Los Angeles is about the middle. In urban America, we have lower turnouts in some cities like Dallas and, obviously, only those cities where you have the election at the same time as the president have, high turnout, but those that do go out to vote oftentimes don`t know what the issues are. They certainly - beyond mayor oftentimes don`t even know what else they`re voting. And so, we have a system right now where the majority of voters have no idea why they voted for a particular judge or a particular initiative.

KORNACKI: All right. My thanks to Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount University. The Lions, thanks for getting up and joining us this morning, we appreciate that.

We have reported this hour that three mobile homes have been destroyed following this morning`s 6.1 earthquake outside Napa California. That number is now up to four. Four homes. There are also reports that the old county courthouse has been damaged in addition to major injuries and multiple moderate injuries have been reported. Stay here with MSNBC for more developments as soon as we get them. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: So, I have to say, I have been resisting the ice bucket challenge. You`ve heard of this thing, right? You dump a bucket of ice on you head, you post a video online, you help raise money for ALS research. It`s a great cause. Definitely glad people are doing it. But by this point it kind of seems like just about everyone else on TV has done it. So, I`m sort of thinking, you know, I don`t know, maybe it is getting boring for people or maybe it`s not that original or maybe it`s not surprising any more. So, you know, we`re not going to do one of those segments on this show.

But, you know, actually, a bunch of people have challenged me to do it. They have challenged me to take the ice bucket challenge. My old cohost in the cycle, Torre and Chris Labolt (ph). They both did it this week, they both dared me to do it along with them. Holly Schepisi, she is a New Jersey assemblywoman who we had on the show a few times when the Chris Christie`s story was raging, well, she did it and she challenged me and so did my old friend from college, Jeff. So, they all challenged me to do it, and I was thinking about it again yesterday and decided, hey, that`s four people challenging me. It`s a good cause. So, maybe I might as well do it after all. So, that`s what we`re going to do right here, right now, right on this set. Maybe not the best place for this. But here`s Ann Thompson, she`s one of our producers. She`s got the ice bucket and she`s bringing it out right now, I think she`s right behind me. Ann, nice to see you. Hold that steady. You got your raincoat. Go ahead and pour the ice bucket on me. Oh, my god. She`s poured the bucket of ice on me. Vanilla ice. That`s right. The stupidest joke you`ll ever see right here at the end of - today. The vanilla ice bucket challenge, I`ve taken it. It is a good cause. What we`re going to do is $5 for every single one of these pictures of vanilla ice. I don`t know how many do we count them up, Ann?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. There are 88 there.

KORNACKI: 88 pictures of vanilla ice and I will give $5 to ALS research for all of those. And I would encourage anybody else out there to give as well. It`s a great cause. And I`m glad I didn`t get wet. So, thank you for putting up with that my really lame sense of humor. Thank you for joining us this morning. We will be back next weekend. Next Saturday and Sunday morning, 8 a.m. Eastern time. Until then, up next, there`s Melissa Harris-Perry. We will see you next week. Here on "UP". Have a great week.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>